STANFORD v. UNCAPHER et al

Filing 9

ORDER STAYING CASE (and Statistical Case Closing). Having been granted leave to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As part of the screening process, the Court may consider whether a plaintiff&# 039;s civil rights claim(s) are premature in light of Heck v. Humphrey. Furthermore, when a plaintiff files an arrest-related civil rights claim before he has been convicted, or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. Here, the public record confirms that Plaintiff's claims are directly related to the state court criminal-charges now pending against him. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff's claim(s) are premature, and this case hereby is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. If and when P laintiff's state charges are dismissed or resolved in his favor, he may file with this Court a motion to reopen his case. Plaintiff is forewarned, however, that any such motion must be appropriately supported, and, should it be in contradiction to his state-court criminal docket, the request will (in the absence of good cause) be summarily denied. In light of the rulings herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 8 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 11/28/16. (dcd) Staff note: a copy of this Order was sent today, via First-Class U.S. Mail, to Plaintiff's address of record.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ORLANDO STANFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
PTLM DANIEL UNCAPHER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-1651
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER STAYING CASE
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff is subject to
the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 n.2
(3d Cir. 2000) (citation to quoted sources omitted). As part of the screening process, the Court
may consider whether a plaintiff’s civil rights claim(s) are premature in light of Heck v.
Humphrey. See, e.g., Strand v. Thompson, 2016 WL 937265, *3 (D. Del. Mar. 10, 2016)
Johnson v. Koehler, 2015 WL 1470948, *22 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2015) (citation to quoted
sources omitted). Furthermore, when “a plaintiff files a[n arrest-related civil rights claim] before
he has been convicted[,] or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a
pending or anticipated criminal trial[], it is within the power of the district court, and in accord
with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a
criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); accord Strand and
Johnson, cited immediately supra (staying pre-conviction civil rights claims, through the
IFP-screening process, because a finding in the prisoner-plaintiff’s favor might impugn his
potential future conviction).

Here, the public record confirms that Plaintiff’s claims are directly related to the
state court criminal-charges now pending against him. Compare Compl. (Doc. 3) at ¶¶ I & IV
(at the time of initiating suit, Plaintiff was detained in Westmoreland County Prison, stemming
from his arrest on December 21, 2014, at the hands of the Defendant-police offers, including
first-named Defendant, Daniel Uncapher) with Dkt. Sheet in Crim. No. CP-65-CR-00030582015 (Comm. Pl. Westmoreland Cnty.) at 1-2 (confirming that Plaintiff was arrested by Officer
Uncapher, on December 21, 2014, and that his criminal case is “active” and awaiting trial).1
Under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s claim(s) are premature, and this case hereby is STAYED
and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.2
If and when Plaintiff’s state charges are dismissed or resolved in his favor, he may file
with this Court a motion to reopen his case. Plaintiff is forewarned, however, that any such
motion must be appropriately supported, and, should it be in contradiction to his state-court
criminal docket, the request will (in the absence of good cause) be summarily denied.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 28, 2016

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

The Court may take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s criminal docket. Orabi v. U.S. A.G., 738 F.3d
535, 537 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014).
1

Administrative closings comprise a familiar way in which courts remove cases from their
active files without final adjudication. Penn West Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 127
(3d Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Administrative closure is a docket
control device used for statistical purposes, and it is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s substantive
rights. Honig v. Comcast of Georgia I, LLC, 537 F. Supp.2d 1277, 1290 n.8 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
2

In light of the rulings herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS
MOOT. Even were counsel now appointed, there is nothing he or she might say to alter the
Court’s determination that Plaintiff’s claims are premature.
3

2

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Orlando Stanford
KP 0191
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

3